Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this response to the above referenced consumer complaint filed on behalf of Ms [redacted] regarding her cell phone replacement claim, submitted under a service warranty issued under Customer Contract Number [redacted] , and administered by Service Net Solutions, LLC("Service Net") on behalf of AIU Service Net has resolved the issue which resulted in the filing of this complaintBy way of background the customer contacted Service Net on February 19, and requested for the replacement of her phoneService Net forwarded the request to the service provider, [redacted] on the same date to process the requestHowever, due to processing delays, [redacted] did not send a return package (shipping box and label) to the customer until May 23, On May 28, 2015, [redacted] (tracking number [redacted] confirmed that the item was delivered to the customer’s address at [redacted] On June 3, 2015, [redacted] notified Service Net that the package has been returnedFurther review of the customer’s record indicated that the customer did not update her address prior to filing the claim so her record showed her previous address when the package was shipped to her on May 23, On June 5, 2015, [redacted] shipped the package via [redacted] (tracking number [redacted] ) to the customer’s current address at [redacted] ***The package was delivered to the customer on June 10, Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this fileThank you Sincerely, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the Complainant regarding a [redacted] administered by [redacted] Services of [redacted] The Complainant contends his television stopped working and requests for the unit to be repaired under the Plan The record shows that the Complainant purchased the Plan on April 26, 2016, under Certificate [redacted] There was no indication by the Complainant during the purchase of the Plan that the [redacted] television he was seeking coverage on was for a refurbished television For that reason, [redacted] set up the coverage under the Plan as if the television was new and not refurbished The Plan was purchased with an effective date beginning after expiration of the original equipment manufacturer [redacted] warranty period The effective dates for the Plan were April 8, 2017, through April 7, On November 28, 2016, the Complainant contacted AWSF to initiate a claim under the Plan stating that his Sharp television was not turning on The Complainant further advised AWSF that the initial Sharp television purchased was replaced by the manufacturer in April 2016, during the OEM warranty period and reported that the replacement Sharp television was refurbished However, the Plan purchased by the Complainant on April 26, 2016, only provided coverage for the initial television not the manufacturer’s replacement television that was refurbished so the claim for repair service was denied by AWSF AWSF continued communications with the Complainant through early December 2016, who contested the claim denial and continued to request service repair on his replacement television After additional research and review, it was found that AWSF sold the Complainant a Plan that provided coverage on a new television rather than a refurbished television Based on these findings, AWSF agreed to honor the Plan terms that were purchased to cover the initial television so the refurbished replacement television would have coverage under the Plan AWSF revised the effective dates for the Plan in our system in order to activate the Plan terms The revised effective date for the Plan covering the replacement television is July 8, 2016, through July 8, On December 14, 2016, the Complainant was advised of AWSF’s decision and a claim for repair of the replacement television was initiated The Complainant requested a specific service provider, TV Center Electronics, for the repairs which AWSF authorized On December 19, 2016, TV Center Electronics evaluated the replacement television and reported that parts were needed to complete the service repair On the same date, AWSF approved parts and labor for the required repairs Upon receipt of the parts by TV Center Electronics, the Complainant will be contacted to schedule an appointment to complete the needed repairs on the replacement televisionAWSF will supplement its response as soon as an update is received from the TV Center Electronics Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this complaintThank you Sincerely, Dorothy AAmoamah Enclosures
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I have received the refund for the warranty contractBut at this time I cannot in good conscience accept their statements, as they are still untrue.First, I received no mail solicitation offering a warranty for two appliances, as was stated by the Company.I was instead called on the phone shortly after purchasing my three appliancesThe short conversation with the support representative over the phone, I was led to believe the following:The warranty would cover all three appliances, which had been purchased simultaneouslyThe warranty was a genuine [redacted] warranty, from [redacted] themselves, and would extend my factory warranty an additional four years (totaling years)I was unable to take time to review the offerThe representative said this was a one-time offer and I would not be able to receive the same offer at a later time, even if I attempted to reach back out to themWhen the Company reached back out to me recently (after the Revdex.com complaint), they told me that they had no records of my phone conversation with the representative, and that I would not be able to put the third appliance on the extended warranty contractFrom these conversations and additional research, I have concluded that the Company is being dishonest:It does not disclose its identity when cold-calling customersThis is deceitfulThey claim to extend the manufacturer's warrantyThis is claimThey make additional commitments that they cannot keep (covering the third appliance)They pressure customers to purchase on-the-spot, preventing them from being able to research the situation in fullIf they were to allow a customer to consider the offer (even for a day), that customer would determine (as I have) that the company is (1) not acting as [redacted] or [redacted] , (2) offering services that they cannot legitimately offer, and (3) have poor service, given other customer reviews I challenge the company to present evidence of:The mailing that the reportedly sent to me offering the warranty on only two of the three appliancesThe recording of the call made to me to offer the product(The call was received May at 11:13am CDT from 800-253-and lasted minutes.) I welcome them to make the necessary changes to add the third applianceIf they sincerely cannot (or will not) do that, then I will retain the refund they have disbursed Regards, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Regards, [redacted] my complaint was based on the multiple attempts I have made to contact this company AIG, waiting mins or more on each of three separate calls and upon eventually reaching an agent finding that the agent had no relevant information pertinent to my situation and that there were no supervisors available that I could speak withI never said or implied that any agent attempted to discourage my claim-only that the excessively long phone wait times were discouraging regarding persueing claims
AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc(“AWG”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her Whirlpool Service Contract (“the Plan”) The Complainant contends that there has been a delay in repairing her washer and that the unit is still in need of repair or replacement Our records reflect that on July 16, 2016, the Complainant contacted Whirlpool directly regarding her washer, which was not working properly and making a loud noiseWhirlpool offered the Complainant a plan that would cover the initial repair of the washer along with coverage for an additional year A claim was initiated on July 16, 2016, for the Complainant’s washer and assigned to Fox TV and Appliance (“Fox”) for repair servicesAn onsite service appointment was scheduled for July 19, 2016, for the repair to take place On August 12, 2016, the Complainant called to indicate that issue with the washer persistedA rework order was set up and assigned to FoxA service repair was scheduled for August 15, 2016, and the necessary repair part was subsequently orderedHowever, there was a delay in Fox receiving the part, which was the outer tub of the washerOn August 31, 2016, and September 7, 2016, AWG contacted Fox for an update on the repair part and advised them to contact the Complainant On September 21, 2016, Fox received the part from Whirlpool; however, AWG was advised that it was damaged upon receiptThe part was reordered with delivery expected within one to two weeksThe Complainant was contacted on September 22, 2016, and was advised of this informationHowever, the Complainant advised that the repair had already taken too long and requested a replacement On September 27, 2016, AWG was contacted by Fox who advised that the washer had been deemed not cost effective to be repairedAWG subsequently instructed Fox to cancel the order for the repair part After reviewing alternate solutions, AWG contacted the Complainant on October 7, 2016, and offered a buyout of the washer in the amount of $pursuant to the Plan termsThe Complainant accepted the buyout offer on October 10, On October 13, 2016, payment was issued to the Complainant in the amount of $677.00, under check no I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number Sincerely, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc(“AWG”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com, Inc(“Revdex.com”) regarding a [redacted] Service Plan (“the Plan”) The Complainant contends that he was contacted by AWG to purchase the Plan and was informed that it covered all three appliances he had purchased through [redacted] Upon receipt of the Plan, the Complainant found that it only had two of three appliances listed as covered The Complainant further checked AWG’s online portal which showed the Plan only covering one appliance The Complainant requests a new Plan showing all appliances as covered under the Plan and for the online portal to be updated to reflect the same information AWG records reflect that on May 16, 2017, it mailed a solicitation to the Complainant to purchase the Plan on two appliances, a range and dishwasher On this same date, the Complainant purchased the Plan in the amount of $ On June 9, 2017, AWG received notice from the Revdex.com of a complaint filed by the Complainant Subsequently, AWG updated the Plan to show the serial numbers for the covered range and dishwasher AWG contacted the Complainant on June 12, 2017, to advise that the solicitation mailed was only for a range and dishwasher The Complainant was further advised by AWG that it was unable to add the third appliance, a refrigerator, to the Plan since it was not part of the solicitation, but he could purchase a separate extended warranty on the refrigerator for coverage In turn, the Complainant stated that if he could not have all three appliances covered under the Plan then he wanted to have the Plan cancelled AWG cancelled the Plan pursuant to the Complainant’s request on June 12, 2017, and a refund was processed back to the Complainant’s credit card on file in the amount of $on June 13, We trust that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me Sincerely, [redacted]
June 8, 2016Via Electronic MailRevdex.com, IncS4th StreetLouisville, KY 40203-2186RE: Complainant: [redacted] ***Service Provider: AIG WarrantyGuard, IncClaim No: [redacted] [redacted] *** [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam:Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the [redacted] *** (“Complainant”) on behalf of [redacted] related to a claim reported under a [redacted] Extended Service Contract (“the Plan”) administered by AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc(“AWG”) The Complainant requests a refund in the amount of $276.43, for the out of pocket cost associated with the repair of the washer coveredunder the Plan.Please note that, AWG resolved this issue on May 19, As a matter of background, the Complainant contacted AWG on April 25, 2016, to initiate a claim for the washer, reporting a leak from underneath the unit A service provider, [redacted] Appliance & Sons Incwas initially assigned to handle the service order On this same date, at the request of the Complainant, the service order was reassigned to [redacted] Appliance [redacted] Appliance declined the service order on April 26, 2016, because it no longer services the Complainant’s area On this day, AWG contacted another service provider, [redacted] Certified Care (“ [redacted] ***”) to complete a diagnostic test of the unit at the Complainant’s residence The diagnostic testing of the unit was completed by [redacted] on April 26, 2016, and estimates for repair were submitted to AWG on May 3, 2016, in the amount of $969.47.Based on the estimates submitted by [redacted] ***, AWG deemed the unit “Beyond Economical Repair” noting that the cost of the repair exceeded the retail value of the unit and determined not to proceed with the repair The repair service was discontinued and the Plan was cancelled in accor***ce with the terms and conditions of the Plan section(s) and Section of the Plan establishes the total liability due to the Complainant by AWG is a full refund of the Plans purchase price On May 19, 2016, AWG refunded the full amount of the Plan’s purchase price in the amount of $to the Complainant via his credit card on record, to resolve the claimThe refund of the Plan exceeds the Complainant’s out-of-pocket expenses of $that was incurred for the repair of the unit upon receiving a second opinion from their chosen service provider.We trust that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this file and reference our file number above.Sincerely, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Regards, [redacted] Still haven't addressed the fact that the entire unit was assigned as a part by the [redacted] Ergo part and component can't be used interchangeablyAfter explaining this point to [redacted] , they told me that I was eligible for a replacement from AIGAIG continues to twist factsI did not complain about fan noise specificallyAfter the 4th issue, I pointed out that a loud humming noise (I'm not sure if it's the fan or another unit) may be indicative of an underlying problemRegardless that issue was after the 4th repairIt should never have been discussedA replacement should have been sent because part [redacted] was repaired times and required a 4th repair Answer the question directlyWas the entire laptop assigned as a part?
Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Extended Warranty Contract (“the Plan”)The Complainant contends that his washer is still in need of repair and has requested a refund for both of the purchased [redacted] units (washer and dryer) Our records reflect that the Complainant purchased the Plan for his washer and dryer, LG model numbe [redacted] and [redacted] , on January 15, On February 6, 2014, the Complainant initiated a claim for his washer, indicating that the unit was not filling with waterThe claim was referred to [redacted] Factory Service (“**”) and on February 7, 2014, during an on-site visit, the [redacted] technician restored the unit to operating per the manufacturer’s specifications On September 23, 2014, the Complainant initiated a claim for both units (claim no.’s [redacted] and [redacted] ), indicating that the washer was vibrating and the clothes were catching on the paddles in the dryer which was causing them to knot upThe claim was referred to [redacted] Factory Service (“***”)On September 24, 2014, [redacted] notified SNW that the Complainant’s geographical area was no longer serviced by *** SNW then referred the claim to ** On October 16, 2014, an [redacted] technician tightened the front legs of the washer and on October 30, 2014, an [redacted] technician replaced the Holder on the dryer Both units were successfully repaired during these onsite visits On January 2, 2015, the Complainant initiated a claim for the washer (claim number [redacted] ), indicating that the unit would stop during the cycle and displayed an “OE” code On January 6, 2015, the claim was referred to [redacted] Appliance Service, Inc(“**”) and a service appointment was scheduled for January 8, While at the Complainant’s home on January 8, 2015, the [redacted] service technician noted that the Complainant had sourced a pump that was needed for the repair The [redacted] service technician installed the pump and the unit was functioning properly On February 4, 2015, SNW received an invoice in the amount of $97.89, for the part purchased by the ComplainantPayment in the amount of $was issued to the Complainant on February 19, 2015, via check number On August 22, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim (claim number [redacted] ), reporting that the washer was stopping during the cycle, and producing a loud grinding noise For products that have past claims, and previous repair services, it is SNW’s standard business procedure to conduct an internal reviewThe internal review process is completed within 7- days Upon review, SNW determined that the units do not qualify for a refund As per the Plan, Section 18, the units are not eligible for the No Lemon GuaranteeIn order to qualify as a lemon, the units would have had to have had three repairs for the same issue and with the same parts replaced each time, and a fourth reported for the same issue as the other three repairsAdditionally, as per Section of the Plan, the units have not been: 1) deemed irreparable by a networked service provider 2) found to be in need of parts that are no longer available and 3) determined to be beyond economical repairBased on the aforementioned, the Complainant is not eligible for the reimbursement cost of the washer and dryer SNW will continue to service the units to maintain proper functioning On August 31, 2016, SNW contacted the Complainant, via telephone, leaving a voicemail advising that a service appointment is scheduled on September 7, 2016, and an [redacted] service technician will be onsite to repair the units I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, *** Sincerely, [redacted]
[redacted] *** [redacted] Re: Complainants: [redacted] Company: Service Net Warranty, LLC Contract No.: [redacted] Claim No.: [redacted] Revdex.com File No.: [redacted] Our File No.: [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her Repair Coverage Service Contract (“the Plan”)The Complainant is requesting a full refund of the Plan that was purchased for her [redacted] laptop (the “laptop”) By way of background, on October 12, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim (claim number [redacted] ) with SNW reporting that her laptop would not hold a charge and [redacted] Services, Inc(“ [redacted] Services”) was assigned to the claim The Complainant was advised that a box and a prepaid [redacted] label were being sent to her so that she could send the laptop to [redacted] Services for repair [redacted] Services received the laptop on October 25, 2016, and a diagnostic report detected that the Logic Board had a broken DC jack and the bottom case had broken grommets On November 4, 2016, [redacted] Services completed the repairs and shipped the laptop back to the Complainant On November 7, 2016, the Complainant contacted SNW stating the laptop would still not hold a charge On this same date, the Complainant requested a refund of the Plan’s purchase price SNW has processed the refund request and the Complainant will be refunded the Plan’s purchase price of $ I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, *** Sincerely, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me The business has made the transaction as promised Regards, [redacted]
Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her extended service plan (“the Plan”)The Complainant contends that her claim has been incorrectly denied by SNWAs a matter of background, the Complainant purchased two notebook computers, one on 9/16/and a second on an unknown dateThe manufacturer’s warranty period for each computer was one yearThe Complainant then purchased two standalone extended service plans for both notebook computers through [redacted] on 11/10/On October 30, 2014, the Complainant initiated a claim for one of her notebook computers, under extended service plan number [redacted] , in connection with a hard drive failureUpon review, SNW determined that the computer was entitled to repair service for this issue under the PlanOn 1/9/15, the notebook computer was deemed beyond economical repair and a full buyout of the unit was offered to the Complainant in the amount of $The Complainant accepted this offer and a check for this amount was mailed shortly thereafterOn 12/15/15, the Complainant contacted SNW to initiate a claim for the second notebook computer under extended service plan number [redacted] However, the Complainant was advised that the Plan had expired on 11/9/15, and no coverage was availablePlease note, certain service requests for covered repairs cannot be set up under an extended service plan until the manufacturer’s warranty period has expiredHowever, there are exceptions in which an extended service plan may provide for covered repairs (i.epower surge or accidental damage from handling) or other benefits which would not be covered by a manufacturer during its warranty periodThis additional coverage provided by an extended service plan must be purchased by a customerThe [redacted] .com website states under the “Specifications” tab, that the Plan coverage starts on the “Date of Equipment Purchase”In this particular case, since the purchase date of the second notebook computer is unknown, the effective date for the Plan was populated for the day prior to the extended service plan purchase dateThe details of the Plan for each notebook computer were not misrepresented by SNW, nor were they advertised differently than how it has been explained to the ComplainantThe Complainant was also provided with a copy of the Plan terms and conditions, which shows the effective and expiration dates on the front page entitled “Certificate of Coverage”Had the Complainant not agreed with the Plan terms and conditions she could have cancelled the Plan within the specified timeframe of sixty (60) days and received a full refundI trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file numberSincerely, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC ("SNW") has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding a claim under his Repair Coverage Service Plan ("the Plan")The Complainant contends that damage to his laptop computer should be covered under the Plan Our records reflect that the Complainant first contacted SNW to initiate a claim for damage sustained to his laptop computer on November 14, The Complainant explained that he had lent his computer to a friend who left it on top of a car and then drove off, causing the damage Given this information, SNW denied this claim on December 3, 2014, as the Plan does not cover any losses due to negligenceIn pertinent part, the plan states: LIMITATIONS OF COVERAGE FOR YOUR PRODUCTTHIS CONTRACT DOES NOT COVER: CAny Product failure related to external causes such as, but not limited to, improper storage, improper ventilation, reconfiguration of equipment, theft, loss, abuse, negligence , vandalism, acts of war, fire, weather related damage, or acts of God Upon further review, SNW maintains the denial of this claim as leaving the computer on the roof of a car is considered negligence since the computer was placed in a position where it could be easily damaged I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number Sincerely, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding a [redacted] Service Contract (“the Plan”)The Complainant is requesting a full refund of the Plan purchase price and the cost incurred to have the ASUS Notebook (the “Notebook”) repaired by a licensed computer mechanic SNW records reflect that on November 9, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim on the Notebook indicating that as of August 29, 2016, the speakers and headphone jack were not producing soundAfter the claim was reviewed by triage services on November 11, 2016, it was confirmed that the Notebook had a hardware issue SNW referred the claim to [redacted] Services, Inc(“ [redacted] Services”) and the Complainant was advised that a shipping box kit would be sent in order to ship the Notebook for repair [redacted] Services advised SNW on January 2, 2017, that the Notebook was never received from the Complainant On January 5, 2017, [redacted] Services reported that it received the Notebook from the Complainant and the unit had scratches on the casing, a broken hinge and a defective logic board [redacted] Services requested pre-approval from SNW for repair of the broken hinge cover and defective logic board After review, SNW determined that it was not cost effective to repair the Notebook and reviewed the claim for an alternate solution under the Plan terms and conditions During the review for an alternate solution, SNW determined that the Complainant first notified SNW of the product failure on November 29, 2016, which was not within days of the date which the Complainant stated the product failure occurred (August 29, 2016), as required under Section LIMITATIONS OF COVERAGE, Subsection M., of the Plan which states: LIMITATIONS OF COVERAGE – This Contract Does Not Cover: M Operational or mechanical failure which is not reported prior to expiration of this Contract or within days of Product failure The Complainant was advised of the denial above via electronic mail by SNW on January 5, SNW also advised [redacted] Services of the denial this same date and requested for the unit to be returned to the Complainant at the address on file On January 12, 2017, the Complainant contacted SNW and alleged that the Notebook was returned unrepaired and had incurred additional damages while in the care of [redacted] ServicesSNW discussed the denial of the claim with the Complainant and advised the Complainant to contact [redacted] Services directly regarding the additional damage In light of this complaint, SNW re-evaluated the claim and determined that the Notebook was not serviced under the Plan pursuant to Section SERVICE EXPRESS, which states: SERVICES EXPRESS Service Express is a benefit “We” provide to all [redacted] Customers with Replacement and Depot Repair contractsWe stand behind Our service and expect that We can repair or replace Your product within five (5) business days or lessWe will refund to You the cost of the service plan You purchased if We take longer than five (5) business days to complete Your repair or replacementThe time to repair Your product does not include shipping time to or from Our repair facilitiesWe will repair Your product within five (5) business days of receipt at Our repair facilityThis benefit is not currently available to any [redacted] Customers scheduling onsite serviceService Express does not cover extended repair times due to parts unavailabilityIn the unlikely event we fail to complete Your repair or replacement within five (5) business days, please contact Us at [redacted] to request a refund of Your service plan cost In order to resolve this matter without further delay, SNW made the decision to offer the Complainant a full refund for the Plan purchase price of $and provide reimbursement for the out of pocket expenses to have the Notebook repaired by a licensed computer mechanic in the amount of $ SNW contacted the Complainant on July 28, 2017, and offered a buyout settlement of the Notebook in the amount of $and the Complainant accepted On this same date, SNW received the signed buyout acceptance letter from the Complainant and began processing the buyout settlement check in the amount $ The Complainant will receive the buyout settlement check from SNW within business days I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, *** Sincerely, [redacted] SEE ATTACHMENTS
Revdex.com, IncS4th Street Louisville, KY 40203- Re.: Complainants: Albert and Irina Hakimi Company: Service Net Warranty, LLC Certificate Nos.: [redacted] Your Case No.: [redacted] Our File No: [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com, Inc., regarding an LG Extended Service Contract (“Plan [redacted] ”) The Complainants contend that there has been a delay in completing repairs on their refrigerator and request a full refund of Plan purchase price or a replacement unit SNW records reflect that on June 6, 2017, the Complainants reported a problem with the refrigerator stating that the ice maker was not working A claim was sunder Plan [redacted] and the refrigerator was serviced on June 8, 2017, by a service technician from Dependable Appliance Service On July 23, 2017, the Complainants contacted SNW to report that the ice maker was still not working properly and they were having issues with the refrigerator light going on and off SNW initiated a rework order, a period of time the servicer warranties its work, with Dependable Appliance Service for a service appointment on August 4, Dependable Appliance Service advised SNW that this appointment was cancelled and the defective ice maker was later replaced on August 18, Dependable Appliance Service contacted SNW on September 6, 2017, to advise that additional parts were needed for continued repair on the refrigerator and a service appointment was scheduled for September 11, The Complainants contacted SNW on September 29, 2017, stating that repair parts have been hard to find for the unit and the service technician from Dependable Appliance Service ordered the wrong parts after the last service appointment Additionally, the Complainants stated that Plan with the claim for repair expired on September 30, 2017, and SNW advise that it was their decision whether or not to renew the Plan On September 30, 2017, the Complainants made the decision to purchase a renewal contract on the refrigerator under Plan with an effective date of October 1, 2017, and expiring on October 1, On October 10, 2017, SNW contacted Dependable Appliance Service regarding the status of the ordered parts and was advised that their record showed that the parts were received Dependable Appliance Service stated that it contacted the Complainants to confirm delivery of the parts and schedule an appointment for installation, but the Complainants did not respond Subsequently, SNW contacted the Complainants, but they were unavailable so a voicemail was left to inquire if they wanted to move forward with repairs In this message, the Complainants were also informed that the claim could be reviewed for alternate solution if they did not want to continue with repairs The Complainants returned the call to SNW on October 11, 2017, and were advised to expect a call back within to business days regarding the decision for an alternate solution SNW also informed the Complainants that since the claim is being reviewed for an alternate solution under Plan 165351742, they should cancel the renewal contract under Plan before expiration of days from the date of purchase in order to get a full refund of the purchase price On October 17, 2017, SNW contacted the Complainants and offered a buyout settlement of the refrigerator in the amount of $1,pursuant to the Plan terms under Section Buyout, which states the following: BUYOUTWe may elect, at Our option, to buyout the Contract during the coverage term for the lesser of (I) current market value of a Product with comparable specifications or (II) purchase price of Your Product minus sales tax and claims paidYou have up to forty-five (45) days from the date of authorization to complete your product buyout transactionWe will have satisfied all obligations owed under this Contract if any one of the buyout options is accepted by YouThe Complainants accepted the buyout offer on October 19, SNW informed the Complainants that a buyout letter would need to be signed and returned before the buyout check could be processed The buyout letter was emailed to the Complainants this same date Upon receipt of the signed buyout letter from the Complainants, SNW will move forward with processing the buyout check To date, the signed buyout letter has not been received by SNW Pursuant to the Complainants request, SNW cancelled the renewal contract under Plan on October 19, 2017, and a full refund of the Plan purchase price in the amount of $was issued back to the Complainants credit card on file on October 20, A copy of the credit card refund is attached for your convenience We will supplement our response as soon as we receive the signed buyout letter from the ComplainantsShould you have any questions please feel free to contact me Sincerely, [redacted] Enclosures
[redacted] ***Dear Sir or Madam: [redacted] has completed a review of the above-captioned follcomplaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his [redacted] The Complainant requests a correction of the effective and expiration dates on the Plan and disputes the purchase price shown on the Schedule Page.As stated in [redacted] response dated October 17, 2016, the Complainant purchased a five (5) year Date of Purchase ("DOP”) service plan with effective and expiration dates of September 7, 2012, through September 7, While a DOP service plan may be similar to an extended warranty, there are several differences between these two types of plansOne difference, in this particular case, is that the Plan for the Complainant is a DOP service plan extending coverage that runs concurrent with the Manufacturer's warranty; whereas, an extended warranty becomes effective after the Manufacturer's warranty expires.Again, please refer to the Schedule Page of the Complainant's Plan which states: "THIS SERVICE PLAN IS INCLUSIVE OF THE MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTYIT DOES NOT REPLACE THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY, BUT PROVIDES CERTAIN ADDITIONAL BENEFITS DURING THE TERM OF THE MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY...'Based on the information above, the effective and expiration dates of September 7, 2012, through September 7, 2017, on the Complainant's Plan are accurate as stated on the Schedule PageNo changes to these dates are warranted as demanded by the Complainant.With regard to the Plan's purchase price, [redacted] contacted Whirlpool and was told that the Complainant received a $discount on the purchase of his washer and the Plan, consistent with the discount shown on the Complainant's receiptWhirlpool's system automatically apportioned the discount between the washer and the Plan, resulting in a final purchase price for the Plan of $For that reason, the purchase price amount shown on the Plan's Schedule Page is correctI trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have anyquestions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted] Sincerely, [redacted]
Re: Complainant: [redacted] Company: [redacted] WarrantyGuard, Inc[redacted] Claim No.: [redacted] Revdex.com File No.: [redacted] Our File No.: ***Dear Sir or Madam:On behalf of [redacted] WarrantyGuard, Inc(“AWG”), we are supplementing our previous response submitted on June 24, 2016, with a payment update in reference to the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”) regarding his Whirlpool Service Contracts (“the Plan[s]”).In our previous response dated June 24, 2016, we indicated that the full refund of $for Plan [redacted] represented the full purchase price of $277.02, less proration of $73.05, and a prior incurred claim expense of $AWG issued a partial refund for this Plan in the amount of $under check #on June 8, 2016, and advised that the remaining portion of the refund, in the amount of $115.96, was being processed and would be issued to the Complainant within the next business days from the date of the letterOn July 7, 2016, AWG issued payment in the amount of $to the Complainant, via check number ***Our records indicate that the Complainant cashed this check on July 15, 2016.Regarding the Complainant’s request for a refund of the $85.00, AWG is permitted under the Plan to deduct claims paid from any refund; however, in consideration of the complaint, and in an effort to resolve this matter, AWG has agreed to refund the $This payment will be processed, and payment will be issued on August 2, Upon issuance, AWG will Upon issuance, AWG will update the Revdex.com with payment information.I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, ***.Sincerely, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved Regards, [redacted] After going through so much, I have finally received my refundI would stay far away from [redacted] and Service Net warranties in the futureI would advise to do research before purchasing 3rd party warranties
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolutionPlease respond here ONLY]Their explanation only addresses of the areas of damage (if you include the scratches), which they only have a picture of one of the spots, and the picture is also rather blurryAlso their explanation is as if they are saying the damage happened in transit, which it appears it did not.Additionally I'm not convinced the contract accounts for the formatting of my computer when specific instructions were included to NOT format the computerThis isn't a problem that they formatted it incorrectlyIn fact permission to format my hard drive was revokedLastly I never received any sort of offer to have my laptop repaired out of pocket.I think if you compare the notes I sent in with my original Revdex.com complaint to their stated actions that you will see the discrepancies Regards, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”), please accept this letter in response to the follinquiry submitted on behalf of the Complainant regarding his Easy Exchange Plus Service Contract (“the Plan”)In a rebuttal to our response dated 4/22/16, the Complainant contends we have not resolved his initial complaint regarding the replacement of his damaged cell phoneIn our previous response letter, it was indicated that once the damaged phone was received, the fulfillment voucher in the amount of $would be processed and the Complainant should receive it within – hoursSNW subsequently contacted the Complainant to provide this update and confirmed his email address where the fulfillment voucher would be sent was correctThe voucher was processed on April 22, On April 25, 2016, the Complainant attempted to use the voucher on [redacted] ’s website but received an invalid code messageUpon further review of this matter, SNW opted to refund the Complainant manuallyA check in the amount of $was sent to the Complainant via USPS on April 29, 2016, and should be received within 3-business daysThis payment represents $owed under the Plan to replace the damaged phone in lieu of the voucherThe additional $is intended to reimburse the Complainant for the cost of a temporary mobile phone he was forced to purchase due to claim fulfillment delays that were out of his controlAgain, we apologize for any inconvenience to the Complainant in the handling of this matterShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file numberSincerely, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this response to the above referenced consumer complaint filed on behalf of Ms [redacted] regarding her cell phone replacement claim, submitted under a service warranty issued under Customer Contract Number [redacted] , and administered by Service Net Solutions, LLC("Service Net") on behalf of AIU Service Net has resolved the issue which resulted in the filing of this complaintBy way of background the customer contacted Service Net on February 19, and requested for the replacement of her phoneService Net forwarded the request to the service provider, [redacted] on the same date to process the requestHowever, due to processing delays, [redacted] did not send a return package (shipping box and label) to the customer until May 23, On May 28, 2015, [redacted] (tracking number [redacted] confirmed that the item was delivered to the customer’s address at [redacted] On June 3, 2015, [redacted] notified Service Net that the package has been returnedFurther review of the customer’s record indicated that the customer did not update her address prior to filing the claim so her record showed her previous address when the package was shipped to her on May 23, On June 5, 2015, [redacted] shipped the package via [redacted] (tracking number [redacted] ) to the customer’s current address at [redacted] ***The package was delivered to the customer on June 10, Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this fileThank you Sincerely, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the Complainant regarding a [redacted] administered by [redacted] Services of [redacted] The Complainant contends his television stopped working and requests for the unit to be repaired under the Plan The record shows that the Complainant purchased the Plan on April 26, 2016, under Certificate [redacted] There was no indication by the Complainant during the purchase of the Plan that the [redacted] television he was seeking coverage on was for a refurbished television For that reason, [redacted] set up the coverage under the Plan as if the television was new and not refurbished The Plan was purchased with an effective date beginning after expiration of the original equipment manufacturer [redacted] warranty period The effective dates for the Plan were April 8, 2017, through April 7, On November 28, 2016, the Complainant contacted AWSF to initiate a claim under the Plan stating that his Sharp television was not turning on The Complainant further advised AWSF that the initial Sharp television purchased was replaced by the manufacturer in April 2016, during the OEM warranty period and reported that the replacement Sharp television was refurbished However, the Plan purchased by the Complainant on April 26, 2016, only provided coverage for the initial television not the manufacturer’s replacement television that was refurbished so the claim for repair service was denied by AWSF AWSF continued communications with the Complainant through early December 2016, who contested the claim denial and continued to request service repair on his replacement television After additional research and review, it was found that AWSF sold the Complainant a Plan that provided coverage on a new television rather than a refurbished television Based on these findings, AWSF agreed to honor the Plan terms that were purchased to cover the initial television so the refurbished replacement television would have coverage under the Plan AWSF revised the effective dates for the Plan in our system in order to activate the Plan terms The revised effective date for the Plan covering the replacement television is July 8, 2016, through July 8, On December 14, 2016, the Complainant was advised of AWSF’s decision and a claim for repair of the replacement television was initiated The Complainant requested a specific service provider, TV Center Electronics, for the repairs which AWSF authorized On December 19, 2016, TV Center Electronics evaluated the replacement television and reported that parts were needed to complete the service repair On the same date, AWSF approved parts and labor for the required repairs Upon receipt of the parts by TV Center Electronics, the Complainant will be contacted to schedule an appointment to complete the needed repairs on the replacement televisionAWSF will supplement its response as soon as an update is received from the TV Center Electronics Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this complaintThank you Sincerely, Dorothy AAmoamah Enclosures
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I have received the refund for the warranty contractBut at this time I cannot in good conscience accept their statements, as they are still untrue.First, I received no mail solicitation offering a warranty for two appliances, as was stated by the Company.I was instead called on the phone shortly after purchasing my three appliancesThe short conversation with the support representative over the phone, I was led to believe the following:The warranty would cover all three appliances, which had been purchased simultaneouslyThe warranty was a genuine [redacted] warranty, from [redacted] themselves, and would extend my factory warranty an additional four years (totaling years)I was unable to take time to review the offerThe representative said this was a one-time offer and I would not be able to receive the same offer at a later time, even if I attempted to reach back out to themWhen the Company reached back out to me recently (after the Revdex.com complaint), they told me that they had no records of my phone conversation with the representative, and that I would not be able to put the third appliance on the extended warranty contractFrom these conversations and additional research, I have concluded that the Company is being dishonest:It does not disclose its identity when cold-calling customersThis is deceitfulThey claim to extend the manufacturer's warrantyThis is claimThey make additional commitments that they cannot keep (covering the third appliance)They pressure customers to purchase on-the-spot, preventing them from being able to research the situation in fullIf they were to allow a customer to consider the offer (even for a day), that customer would determine (as I have) that the company is (1) not acting as [redacted] or [redacted] , (2) offering services that they cannot legitimately offer, and (3) have poor service, given other customer reviews I challenge the company to present evidence of:The mailing that the reportedly sent to me offering the warranty on only two of the three appliancesThe recording of the call made to me to offer the product(The call was received May at 11:13am CDT from 800-253-and lasted minutes.) I welcome them to make the necessary changes to add the third applianceIf they sincerely cannot (or will not) do that, then I will retain the refund they have disbursed Regards, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Regards, [redacted] my complaint was based on the multiple attempts I have made to contact this company AIG, waiting mins or more on each of three separate calls and upon eventually reaching an agent finding that the agent had no relevant information pertinent to my situation and that there were no supervisors available that I could speak withI never said or implied that any agent attempted to discourage my claim-only that the excessively long phone wait times were discouraging regarding persueing claims
AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc(“AWG”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her Whirlpool Service Contract (“the Plan”) The Complainant contends that there has been a delay in repairing her washer and that the unit is still in need of repair or replacement Our records reflect that on July 16, 2016, the Complainant contacted Whirlpool directly regarding her washer, which was not working properly and making a loud noiseWhirlpool offered the Complainant a plan that would cover the initial repair of the washer along with coverage for an additional year A claim was initiated on July 16, 2016, for the Complainant’s washer and assigned to Fox TV and Appliance (“Fox”) for repair servicesAn onsite service appointment was scheduled for July 19, 2016, for the repair to take place On August 12, 2016, the Complainant called to indicate that issue with the washer persistedA rework order was set up and assigned to FoxA service repair was scheduled for August 15, 2016, and the necessary repair part was subsequently orderedHowever, there was a delay in Fox receiving the part, which was the outer tub of the washerOn August 31, 2016, and September 7, 2016, AWG contacted Fox for an update on the repair part and advised them to contact the Complainant On September 21, 2016, Fox received the part from Whirlpool; however, AWG was advised that it was damaged upon receiptThe part was reordered with delivery expected within one to two weeksThe Complainant was contacted on September 22, 2016, and was advised of this informationHowever, the Complainant advised that the repair had already taken too long and requested a replacement On September 27, 2016, AWG was contacted by Fox who advised that the washer had been deemed not cost effective to be repairedAWG subsequently instructed Fox to cancel the order for the repair part After reviewing alternate solutions, AWG contacted the Complainant on October 7, 2016, and offered a buyout of the washer in the amount of $pursuant to the Plan termsThe Complainant accepted the buyout offer on October 10, On October 13, 2016, payment was issued to the Complainant in the amount of $677.00, under check no I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number Sincerely, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc(“AWG”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com, Inc(“Revdex.com”) regarding a [redacted] Service Plan (“the Plan”) The Complainant contends that he was contacted by AWG to purchase the Plan and was informed that it covered all three appliances he had purchased through [redacted] Upon receipt of the Plan, the Complainant found that it only had two of three appliances listed as covered The Complainant further checked AWG’s online portal which showed the Plan only covering one appliance The Complainant requests a new Plan showing all appliances as covered under the Plan and for the online portal to be updated to reflect the same information AWG records reflect that on May 16, 2017, it mailed a solicitation to the Complainant to purchase the Plan on two appliances, a range and dishwasher On this same date, the Complainant purchased the Plan in the amount of $ On June 9, 2017, AWG received notice from the Revdex.com of a complaint filed by the Complainant Subsequently, AWG updated the Plan to show the serial numbers for the covered range and dishwasher AWG contacted the Complainant on June 12, 2017, to advise that the solicitation mailed was only for a range and dishwasher The Complainant was further advised by AWG that it was unable to add the third appliance, a refrigerator, to the Plan since it was not part of the solicitation, but he could purchase a separate extended warranty on the refrigerator for coverage In turn, the Complainant stated that if he could not have all three appliances covered under the Plan then he wanted to have the Plan cancelled AWG cancelled the Plan pursuant to the Complainant’s request on June 12, 2017, and a refund was processed back to the Complainant’s credit card on file in the amount of $on June 13, We trust that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me Sincerely, [redacted]
June 8, 2016Via Electronic MailRevdex.com, IncS4th StreetLouisville, KY 40203-2186RE: Complainant: [redacted] ***Service Provider: AIG WarrantyGuard, IncClaim No: [redacted] [redacted] *** [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam:Please accept this response to the above referenced complaint filed by the [redacted] *** (“Complainant”) on behalf of [redacted] related to a claim reported under a [redacted] Extended Service Contract (“the Plan”) administered by AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc(“AWG”) The Complainant requests a refund in the amount of $276.43, for the out of pocket cost associated with the repair of the washer coveredunder the Plan.Please note that, AWG resolved this issue on May 19, As a matter of background, the Complainant contacted AWG on April 25, 2016, to initiate a claim for the washer, reporting a leak from underneath the unit A service provider, [redacted] Appliance & Sons Incwas initially assigned to handle the service order On this same date, at the request of the Complainant, the service order was reassigned to [redacted] Appliance [redacted] Appliance declined the service order on April 26, 2016, because it no longer services the Complainant’s area On this day, AWG contacted another service provider, [redacted] Certified Care (“ [redacted] ***”) to complete a diagnostic test of the unit at the Complainant’s residence The diagnostic testing of the unit was completed by [redacted] on April 26, 2016, and estimates for repair were submitted to AWG on May 3, 2016, in the amount of $969.47.Based on the estimates submitted by [redacted] ***, AWG deemed the unit “Beyond Economical Repair” noting that the cost of the repair exceeded the retail value of the unit and determined not to proceed with the repair The repair service was discontinued and the Plan was cancelled in accor***ce with the terms and conditions of the Plan section(s) and Section of the Plan establishes the total liability due to the Complainant by AWG is a full refund of the Plans purchase price On May 19, 2016, AWG refunded the full amount of the Plan’s purchase price in the amount of $to the Complainant via his credit card on record, to resolve the claimThe refund of the Plan exceeds the Complainant’s out-of-pocket expenses of $that was incurred for the repair of the unit upon receiving a second opinion from their chosen service provider.We trust that we have satisfactorily responded to your inquiry Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this file and reference our file number above.Sincerely, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Regards, [redacted] Still haven't addressed the fact that the entire unit was assigned as a part by the [redacted] Ergo part and component can't be used interchangeablyAfter explaining this point to [redacted] , they told me that I was eligible for a replacement from AIGAIG continues to twist factsI did not complain about fan noise specificallyAfter the 4th issue, I pointed out that a loud humming noise (I'm not sure if it's the fan or another unit) may be indicative of an underlying problemRegardless that issue was after the 4th repairIt should never have been discussedA replacement should have been sent because part [redacted] was repaired times and required a 4th repair Answer the question directlyWas the entire laptop assigned as a part?
Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his Extended Warranty Contract (“the Plan”)The Complainant contends that his washer is still in need of repair and has requested a refund for both of the purchased [redacted] units (washer and dryer) Our records reflect that the Complainant purchased the Plan for his washer and dryer, LG model numbe [redacted] and [redacted] , on January 15, On February 6, 2014, the Complainant initiated a claim for his washer, indicating that the unit was not filling with waterThe claim was referred to [redacted] Factory Service (“**”) and on February 7, 2014, during an on-site visit, the [redacted] technician restored the unit to operating per the manufacturer’s specifications On September 23, 2014, the Complainant initiated a claim for both units (claim no.’s [redacted] and [redacted] ), indicating that the washer was vibrating and the clothes were catching on the paddles in the dryer which was causing them to knot upThe claim was referred to [redacted] Factory Service (“***”)On September 24, 2014, [redacted] notified SNW that the Complainant’s geographical area was no longer serviced by *** SNW then referred the claim to ** On October 16, 2014, an [redacted] technician tightened the front legs of the washer and on October 30, 2014, an [redacted] technician replaced the Holder on the dryer Both units were successfully repaired during these onsite visits On January 2, 2015, the Complainant initiated a claim for the washer (claim number [redacted] ), indicating that the unit would stop during the cycle and displayed an “OE” code On January 6, 2015, the claim was referred to [redacted] Appliance Service, Inc(“**”) and a service appointment was scheduled for January 8, While at the Complainant’s home on January 8, 2015, the [redacted] service technician noted that the Complainant had sourced a pump that was needed for the repair The [redacted] service technician installed the pump and the unit was functioning properly On February 4, 2015, SNW received an invoice in the amount of $97.89, for the part purchased by the ComplainantPayment in the amount of $was issued to the Complainant on February 19, 2015, via check number On August 22, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim (claim number [redacted] ), reporting that the washer was stopping during the cycle, and producing a loud grinding noise For products that have past claims, and previous repair services, it is SNW’s standard business procedure to conduct an internal reviewThe internal review process is completed within 7- days Upon review, SNW determined that the units do not qualify for a refund As per the Plan, Section 18, the units are not eligible for the No Lemon GuaranteeIn order to qualify as a lemon, the units would have had to have had three repairs for the same issue and with the same parts replaced each time, and a fourth reported for the same issue as the other three repairsAdditionally, as per Section of the Plan, the units have not been: 1) deemed irreparable by a networked service provider 2) found to be in need of parts that are no longer available and 3) determined to be beyond economical repairBased on the aforementioned, the Complainant is not eligible for the reimbursement cost of the washer and dryer SNW will continue to service the units to maintain proper functioning On August 31, 2016, SNW contacted the Complainant, via telephone, leaving a voicemail advising that a service appointment is scheduled on September 7, 2016, and an [redacted] service technician will be onsite to repair the units I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, *** Sincerely, [redacted]
[redacted] *** [redacted] Re: Complainants: [redacted] Company: Service Net Warranty, LLC Contract No.: [redacted] Claim No.: [redacted] Revdex.com File No.: [redacted] Our File No.: [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her Repair Coverage Service Contract (“the Plan”)The Complainant is requesting a full refund of the Plan that was purchased for her [redacted] laptop (the “laptop”) By way of background, on October 12, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim (claim number [redacted] ) with SNW reporting that her laptop would not hold a charge and [redacted] Services, Inc(“ [redacted] Services”) was assigned to the claim The Complainant was advised that a box and a prepaid [redacted] label were being sent to her so that she could send the laptop to [redacted] Services for repair [redacted] Services received the laptop on October 25, 2016, and a diagnostic report detected that the Logic Board had a broken DC jack and the bottom case had broken grommets On November 4, 2016, [redacted] Services completed the repairs and shipped the laptop back to the Complainant On November 7, 2016, the Complainant contacted SNW stating the laptop would still not hold a charge On this same date, the Complainant requested a refund of the Plan’s purchase price SNW has processed the refund request and the Complainant will be refunded the Plan’s purchase price of $ I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, *** Sincerely, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me The business has made the transaction as promised Regards, [redacted]
Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding her extended service plan (“the Plan”)The Complainant contends that her claim has been incorrectly denied by SNWAs a matter of background, the Complainant purchased two notebook computers, one on 9/16/and a second on an unknown dateThe manufacturer’s warranty period for each computer was one yearThe Complainant then purchased two standalone extended service plans for both notebook computers through [redacted] on 11/10/On October 30, 2014, the Complainant initiated a claim for one of her notebook computers, under extended service plan number [redacted] , in connection with a hard drive failureUpon review, SNW determined that the computer was entitled to repair service for this issue under the PlanOn 1/9/15, the notebook computer was deemed beyond economical repair and a full buyout of the unit was offered to the Complainant in the amount of $The Complainant accepted this offer and a check for this amount was mailed shortly thereafterOn 12/15/15, the Complainant contacted SNW to initiate a claim for the second notebook computer under extended service plan number [redacted] However, the Complainant was advised that the Plan had expired on 11/9/15, and no coverage was availablePlease note, certain service requests for covered repairs cannot be set up under an extended service plan until the manufacturer’s warranty period has expiredHowever, there are exceptions in which an extended service plan may provide for covered repairs (i.epower surge or accidental damage from handling) or other benefits which would not be covered by a manufacturer during its warranty periodThis additional coverage provided by an extended service plan must be purchased by a customerThe [redacted] .com website states under the “Specifications” tab, that the Plan coverage starts on the “Date of Equipment Purchase”In this particular case, since the purchase date of the second notebook computer is unknown, the effective date for the Plan was populated for the day prior to the extended service plan purchase dateThe details of the Plan for each notebook computer were not misrepresented by SNW, nor were they advertised differently than how it has been explained to the ComplainantThe Complainant was also provided with a copy of the Plan terms and conditions, which shows the effective and expiration dates on the front page entitled “Certificate of Coverage”Had the Complainant not agreed with the Plan terms and conditions she could have cancelled the Plan within the specified timeframe of sixty (60) days and received a full refundI trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file numberSincerely, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC ("SNW") has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding a claim under his Repair Coverage Service Plan ("the Plan")The Complainant contends that damage to his laptop computer should be covered under the Plan Our records reflect that the Complainant first contacted SNW to initiate a claim for damage sustained to his laptop computer on November 14, The Complainant explained that he had lent his computer to a friend who left it on top of a car and then drove off, causing the damage Given this information, SNW denied this claim on December 3, 2014, as the Plan does not cover any losses due to negligenceIn pertinent part, the plan states: LIMITATIONS OF COVERAGE FOR YOUR PRODUCTTHIS CONTRACT DOES NOT COVER: CAny Product failure related to external causes such as, but not limited to, improper storage, improper ventilation, reconfiguration of equipment, theft, loss, abuse, negligence , vandalism, acts of war, fire, weather related damage, or acts of God Upon further review, SNW maintains the denial of this claim as leaving the computer on the roof of a car is considered negligence since the computer was placed in a position where it could be easily damaged I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number Sincerely, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the abovecaptioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding a [redacted] Service Contract (“the Plan”)The Complainant is requesting a full refund of the Plan purchase price and the cost incurred to have the ASUS Notebook (the “Notebook”) repaired by a licensed computer mechanic SNW records reflect that on November 9, 2016, the Complainant initiated a claim on the Notebook indicating that as of August 29, 2016, the speakers and headphone jack were not producing soundAfter the claim was reviewed by triage services on November 11, 2016, it was confirmed that the Notebook had a hardware issue SNW referred the claim to [redacted] Services, Inc(“ [redacted] Services”) and the Complainant was advised that a shipping box kit would be sent in order to ship the Notebook for repair [redacted] Services advised SNW on January 2, 2017, that the Notebook was never received from the Complainant On January 5, 2017, [redacted] Services reported that it received the Notebook from the Complainant and the unit had scratches on the casing, a broken hinge and a defective logic board [redacted] Services requested pre-approval from SNW for repair of the broken hinge cover and defective logic board After review, SNW determined that it was not cost effective to repair the Notebook and reviewed the claim for an alternate solution under the Plan terms and conditions During the review for an alternate solution, SNW determined that the Complainant first notified SNW of the product failure on November 29, 2016, which was not within days of the date which the Complainant stated the product failure occurred (August 29, 2016), as required under Section LIMITATIONS OF COVERAGE, Subsection M., of the Plan which states: LIMITATIONS OF COVERAGE – This Contract Does Not Cover: M Operational or mechanical failure which is not reported prior to expiration of this Contract or within days of Product failure The Complainant was advised of the denial above via electronic mail by SNW on January 5, SNW also advised [redacted] Services of the denial this same date and requested for the unit to be returned to the Complainant at the address on file On January 12, 2017, the Complainant contacted SNW and alleged that the Notebook was returned unrepaired and had incurred additional damages while in the care of [redacted] ServicesSNW discussed the denial of the claim with the Complainant and advised the Complainant to contact [redacted] Services directly regarding the additional damage In light of this complaint, SNW re-evaluated the claim and determined that the Notebook was not serviced under the Plan pursuant to Section SERVICE EXPRESS, which states: SERVICES EXPRESS Service Express is a benefit “We” provide to all [redacted] Customers with Replacement and Depot Repair contractsWe stand behind Our service and expect that We can repair or replace Your product within five (5) business days or lessWe will refund to You the cost of the service plan You purchased if We take longer than five (5) business days to complete Your repair or replacementThe time to repair Your product does not include shipping time to or from Our repair facilitiesWe will repair Your product within five (5) business days of receipt at Our repair facilityThis benefit is not currently available to any [redacted] Customers scheduling onsite serviceService Express does not cover extended repair times due to parts unavailabilityIn the unlikely event we fail to complete Your repair or replacement within five (5) business days, please contact Us at [redacted] to request a refund of Your service plan cost In order to resolve this matter without further delay, SNW made the decision to offer the Complainant a full refund for the Plan purchase price of $and provide reimbursement for the out of pocket expenses to have the Notebook repaired by a licensed computer mechanic in the amount of $ SNW contacted the Complainant on July 28, 2017, and offered a buyout settlement of the Notebook in the amount of $and the Complainant accepted On this same date, SNW received the signed buyout acceptance letter from the Complainant and began processing the buyout settlement check in the amount $ The Complainant will receive the buyout settlement check from SNW within business days I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, *** Sincerely, [redacted] SEE ATTACHMENTS
Revdex.com, IncS4th Street Louisville, KY 40203- Re.: Complainants: Albert and Irina Hakimi Company: Service Net Warranty, LLC Certificate Nos.: [redacted] Your Case No.: [redacted] Our File No: [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam: Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”) has completed a review of the above-captioned complaint filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com, Inc., regarding an LG Extended Service Contract (“Plan [redacted] ”) The Complainants contend that there has been a delay in completing repairs on their refrigerator and request a full refund of Plan purchase price or a replacement unit SNW records reflect that on June 6, 2017, the Complainants reported a problem with the refrigerator stating that the ice maker was not working A claim was sunder Plan [redacted] and the refrigerator was serviced on June 8, 2017, by a service technician from Dependable Appliance Service On July 23, 2017, the Complainants contacted SNW to report that the ice maker was still not working properly and they were having issues with the refrigerator light going on and off SNW initiated a rework order, a period of time the servicer warranties its work, with Dependable Appliance Service for a service appointment on August 4, Dependable Appliance Service advised SNW that this appointment was cancelled and the defective ice maker was later replaced on August 18, Dependable Appliance Service contacted SNW on September 6, 2017, to advise that additional parts were needed for continued repair on the refrigerator and a service appointment was scheduled for September 11, The Complainants contacted SNW on September 29, 2017, stating that repair parts have been hard to find for the unit and the service technician from Dependable Appliance Service ordered the wrong parts after the last service appointment Additionally, the Complainants stated that Plan with the claim for repair expired on September 30, 2017, and SNW advise that it was their decision whether or not to renew the Plan On September 30, 2017, the Complainants made the decision to purchase a renewal contract on the refrigerator under Plan with an effective date of October 1, 2017, and expiring on October 1, On October 10, 2017, SNW contacted Dependable Appliance Service regarding the status of the ordered parts and was advised that their record showed that the parts were received Dependable Appliance Service stated that it contacted the Complainants to confirm delivery of the parts and schedule an appointment for installation, but the Complainants did not respond Subsequently, SNW contacted the Complainants, but they were unavailable so a voicemail was left to inquire if they wanted to move forward with repairs In this message, the Complainants were also informed that the claim could be reviewed for alternate solution if they did not want to continue with repairs The Complainants returned the call to SNW on October 11, 2017, and were advised to expect a call back within to business days regarding the decision for an alternate solution SNW also informed the Complainants that since the claim is being reviewed for an alternate solution under Plan 165351742, they should cancel the renewal contract under Plan before expiration of days from the date of purchase in order to get a full refund of the purchase price On October 17, 2017, SNW contacted the Complainants and offered a buyout settlement of the refrigerator in the amount of $1,pursuant to the Plan terms under Section Buyout, which states the following: BUYOUTWe may elect, at Our option, to buyout the Contract during the coverage term for the lesser of (I) current market value of a Product with comparable specifications or (II) purchase price of Your Product minus sales tax and claims paidYou have up to forty-five (45) days from the date of authorization to complete your product buyout transactionWe will have satisfied all obligations owed under this Contract if any one of the buyout options is accepted by YouThe Complainants accepted the buyout offer on October 19, SNW informed the Complainants that a buyout letter would need to be signed and returned before the buyout check could be processed The buyout letter was emailed to the Complainants this same date Upon receipt of the signed buyout letter from the Complainants, SNW will move forward with processing the buyout check To date, the signed buyout letter has not been received by SNW Pursuant to the Complainants request, SNW cancelled the renewal contract under Plan on October 19, 2017, and a full refund of the Plan purchase price in the amount of $was issued back to the Complainants credit card on file on October 20, A copy of the credit card refund is attached for your convenience We will supplement our response as soon as we receive the signed buyout letter from the ComplainantsShould you have any questions please feel free to contact me Sincerely, [redacted] Enclosures
[redacted] ***Dear Sir or Madam: [redacted] has completed a review of the above-captioned follcomplaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com regarding his [redacted] The Complainant requests a correction of the effective and expiration dates on the Plan and disputes the purchase price shown on the Schedule Page.As stated in [redacted] response dated October 17, 2016, the Complainant purchased a five (5) year Date of Purchase ("DOP”) service plan with effective and expiration dates of September 7, 2012, through September 7, While a DOP service plan may be similar to an extended warranty, there are several differences between these two types of plansOne difference, in this particular case, is that the Plan for the Complainant is a DOP service plan extending coverage that runs concurrent with the Manufacturer's warranty; whereas, an extended warranty becomes effective after the Manufacturer's warranty expires.Again, please refer to the Schedule Page of the Complainant's Plan which states: "THIS SERVICE PLAN IS INCLUSIVE OF THE MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTYIT DOES NOT REPLACE THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY, BUT PROVIDES CERTAIN ADDITIONAL BENEFITS DURING THE TERM OF THE MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY...'Based on the information above, the effective and expiration dates of September 7, 2012, through September 7, 2017, on the Complainant's Plan are accurate as stated on the Schedule PageNo changes to these dates are warranted as demanded by the Complainant.With regard to the Plan's purchase price, [redacted] contacted Whirlpool and was told that the Complainant received a $discount on the purchase of his washer and the Plan, consistent with the discount shown on the Complainant's receiptWhirlpool's system automatically apportioned the discount between the washer and the Plan, resulting in a final purchase price for the Plan of $For that reason, the purchase price amount shown on the Plan's Schedule Page is correctI trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have anyquestions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, [redacted] Sincerely, [redacted]
Re: Complainant: [redacted] Company: [redacted] WarrantyGuard, Inc[redacted] Claim No.: [redacted] Revdex.com File No.: [redacted] Our File No.: ***Dear Sir or Madam:On behalf of [redacted] WarrantyGuard, Inc(“AWG”), we are supplementing our previous response submitted on June 24, 2016, with a payment update in reference to the above-captioned complaint which was filed by the Complainant with the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”) regarding his Whirlpool Service Contracts (“the Plan[s]”).In our previous response dated June 24, 2016, we indicated that the full refund of $for Plan [redacted] represented the full purchase price of $277.02, less proration of $73.05, and a prior incurred claim expense of $AWG issued a partial refund for this Plan in the amount of $under check #on June 8, 2016, and advised that the remaining portion of the refund, in the amount of $115.96, was being processed and would be issued to the Complainant within the next business days from the date of the letterOn July 7, 2016, AWG issued payment in the amount of $to the Complainant, via check number ***Our records indicate that the Complainant cashed this check on July 15, 2016.Regarding the Complainant’s request for a refund of the $85.00, AWG is permitted under the Plan to deduct claims paid from any refund; however, in consideration of the complaint, and in an effort to resolve this matter, AWG has agreed to refund the $This payment will be processed, and payment will be issued on August 2, Upon issuance, AWG will Upon issuance, AWG will update the Revdex.com with payment information.I trust that I have satisfactorily responded to your inquiryShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file number, ***.Sincerely, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved Regards, [redacted] After going through so much, I have finally received my refundI would stay far away from [redacted] and Service Net warranties in the futureI would advise to do research before purchasing 3rd party warranties
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolutionPlease respond here ONLY]Their explanation only addresses of the areas of damage (if you include the scratches), which they only have a picture of one of the spots, and the picture is also rather blurryAlso their explanation is as if they are saying the damage happened in transit, which it appears it did not.Additionally I'm not convinced the contract accounts for the formatting of my computer when specific instructions were included to NOT format the computerThis isn't a problem that they formatted it incorrectlyIn fact permission to format my hard drive was revokedLastly I never received any sort of offer to have my laptop repaired out of pocket.I think if you compare the notes I sent in with my original Revdex.com complaint to their stated actions that you will see the discrepancies Regards, [redacted]
Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of Service Net Warranty, LLC (“SNW”), please accept this letter in response to the follinquiry submitted on behalf of the Complainant regarding his Easy Exchange Plus Service Contract (“the Plan”)In a rebuttal to our response dated 4/22/16, the Complainant contends we have not resolved his initial complaint regarding the replacement of his damaged cell phoneIn our previous response letter, it was indicated that once the damaged phone was received, the fulfillment voucher in the amount of $would be processed and the Complainant should receive it within – hoursSNW subsequently contacted the Complainant to provide this update and confirmed his email address where the fulfillment voucher would be sent was correctThe voucher was processed on April 22, On April 25, 2016, the Complainant attempted to use the voucher on [redacted] ’s website but received an invalid code messageUpon further review of this matter, SNW opted to refund the Complainant manuallyA check in the amount of $was sent to the Complainant via USPS on April 29, 2016, and should be received within 3-business daysThis payment represents $owed under the Plan to replace the damaged phone in lieu of the voucherThe additional $is intended to reimburse the Complainant for the cost of a temporary mobile phone he was forced to purchase due to claim fulfillment delays that were out of his controlAgain, we apologize for any inconvenience to the Complainant in the handling of this matterShould you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly and reference our file numberSincerely, [redacted]